Essential tremors

[Ken Dillon]

Currently I'm right at 100% permanently and totally I had a recently reward for essential tremors at 0% question is the reason I got 0% is because I am at 100%.?

[broncovet]

You posted:

Quote

The letter says I can not appeal it to higher review

This is bizarre.  HLR is one of the appeal choices.  The only reason I can think of that you could not appeal this as a HLR is because its "already" in higher level review.  

The obvious next step is to appeal it to the BVA.  Im not sure about your disability percentages and how they add up, but, it sounds like you should appeal if only to get SMC S, your next step up.  SMC S will get you about an extra $446 per month in 2024, if awarded.  

[Lemuel]

Who wants to do a higher level review?  My experience is that you just get a rubber stamp of the RO decision and end up having to request a legacy hearing. 

Supposedly that is what the BVA Judge slammed my legacy appeal into.  It was remanded by the CAVC in legacy and then I had to go back again to the CAVC to get another remand.  Hope I get a decent judge this time. 

Actually, I think it is the clerk that wants to get out of work that engineers the sending of the option to go from legacy to higher level review which eliminates evidence submitted after the claim as well as filing a brief and motions to the BVA.  Read the form carefully.  And do not offer an alternative of deciding on your brief and motions.  Simply stick with the hearing and the ability to submit additional evidence for 90 days.  Things come up in the Hearings.

[Dustoff1970]

A few years ago my VARO claim denial decision said I could not appeal via another HLR because the denial decision was due to my just completed HLR review.  So I had to file a supplemental or appeal to the BVA.  I did appeal to the BVA and won.  For me HLR reviews are a waster of time.

[Lemuel]

Agree with Dustoff

[broncovet]

I agree, and dont use HLR.  

I have had, on at least one occassion, the VA deny claims when I was 100 percent because it was "moot".  I appealed to the BVA, arguing it was not moot because it could involve in additional benefits such as:

1.  SMC S

2  Earlier effective date (for tdiu, which I had sought).  

    The board agreed with me and stated that "it was not moot" and ordered the VA to consider my tdiu to include extra scheduler tdiu.  

    There is a common misconception among VSO's, Veteran advocates, and VA employees that "100 % is the maximum benefit".  Its not.  

According to VA's SMC compensation rate tables, a Single Veteran rated R2 can get 10,697.23 per month which is more than double the single Veterans 100 percent rate of $3737.85

The myth of "100 percent is the best you can do" is just another way the VA gets you to settle for less than you deserve/. 

Dont let them do it.  Appeal.  

    

[Lemuel]

5 hours ago, broncovet said:

I agree, and dont use HLR.  

I have had, on at least one occassion, the VA deny claims when I was 100 percent because it was "moot".  I appealed to the BVA, arguing it was not moot because it could involve in additional benefits such as:

1.  SMC S

2  Earlier effective date (for tdiu, which I had sought).  

    The board agreed with me and stated that "it was not moot" and ordered the VA to consider my tdiu to include extra scheduler tdiu.  

    There is a common misconception among VSO's, Veteran advocates, and VA employees that "100 % is the maximum benefit".  Its not.  

According to VA's SMC compensation rate tables, a Single Veteran rated R2 can get 10,697.23 per month which is more than double the single Veterans 100 percent rate of $3737.85

The myth of "100 percent is the best you can do" is just another way the VA gets you to settle for less than you deserve/. 

Dont let them do it.  Appeal.  

    

And TBI victims will possibly be able to get paid as R2 under SMC-T depending upon how Laska vs McDonough (Haskell vs McDonough) Decision comes down.  With my higher level of care being belatedly instituted after being ordered by my PC team, it appears I will get SMC-T even under the VAGC argument in Haskell vs McDonough as the regulations currently stand.  And Haskell had a medical professional, Laska, capable of higher level of care, essentially doing higher level of care, just not the order to get it from community care.